Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider
registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.

Usual lie and insult of A'Hearn who stated that comets are mostly DUST, not actual ROCK, to derail form his electric comet insanity.

Astronomers believe that comets have a larger dust component than in the 1950's because that is what data in the 2000's says !
The impact on Tempel 1 in 2005 ejected more dust than water ices.
The evidence is that 67P has about 6 times as much dust than it has ices.

What A'Hearn actually described as rock was the consolidated ices and dust. He was using geological terms for comet features as is fairly common.

No astronomer is insane enough to believe that comets are made of actual rock as in asteroids or terrestrial rock.

Don Scott wrote a paper on Birkeland currents completely nailed it and nothing but venom from the mainstream!!!

So the boys are going it alone now with SAFIRE.

Seems thev'e already out done the "big boys"!

Tokamaks, stellerators...all bull excrement.. ha ha ha giggle snort. assume all they need is a few more billion dollars and bingo. Well we are not quite there, so can we a few more billion please, we are nearly there!

Shamefull.

Nope, the idiot Scott wrote a load of garbage, and screwed up the maths;

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]

He is not stating that comets are mostly rock or "rocky".
He is stating that his opinion is that we are beginning to think that refractory/volatile ratios are "mostly rock" where the refractory material is dust, not rock.

The question is more whether the few measurements we have (Tempel 1, 67 P, others?) are typical of comets or outliers.Tempel 1 and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko are short period comets. It is possible that they have sublimated volatiles during their lifetime and many visits to the Sun.

He is not stating that comets are mostly rock or "rocky".
He is stating that his opinion is that we are beginning to think that refractory/volatile ratios are "mostly rock" where the refractory material is dust, not rock.

The question is more whether the few measurements we have (Tempel 1, 67 P, others?) are typical of comets or outliers.Tempel 1 and 67P/Churyumov–Gerasimenko are short period comets. It is possible that they have sublimated volatiles during their lifetime and many visits to the Sun.

Oh, sorry didn't realise it was just an opinion!

He's stating comets are mostly NOT ice but mostly ARE rock!

let have a real close look at the statement

Quote:

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]

actualy I tell i lie

Whipple thought comets were made up of ice,rock,dust.

A'Hearn's opinion, according to RC, is they are composed mostly of rock!

Is he an idiot or something because he did not no the difference between ice and rock?

Is he an idiot or something because he did not no the difference between ice and rock?

I keep telling you - there is no rock. End of story. For the umpteenth time, point to the detection of rock by the instruments, or quit with the lying. There is rocky type, i.e. compact dust, and there is fluffy dust. And there is ice. Nothing else. Provably. There is no rock. As any idiot who understands what density is would understand.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

Plenty of ways the jets can occur, as has been explained in the literature. Nobody with an IQ above that of a trilobite thinks that they are electrical woo. If you think otherwise, let's see the detections. All you have is faith-based, unscientific word salad. Not a jot of evidence.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

The total lack of response to this post shows that the ec woo has been admitted by its proponents to be scientifically unfeasible.

Originally Posted by jonesdave116

Time to get back to basics, after all of Sol's gish-galloping and avoidance. Let us remind ourselves of the core claims of the neo-Velikovskian, scientifically impossible woo that is the 'electric comet'.

Pure Velikovskian woo. Easily dismissed, as cometary surfaces are not at all like those of any rocky planet. Not to mention the impossibility of these 'electrical interactions'.

So, why don't asteroids on elliptical orbits show cametary behaviour? And why are their measured densities much greater than comets?

What weak electric field is this? Where has it been measured? Why would it be there?

What 'electrical stresses'? And the only glowing going on is mostly due to sunlight reflected from dust.

Which is an outright lie. This was written in 2006, at which time dozens of comets had had H2O definitively detected at them. This goes back to the Kuiper Airborne Observatory observations of Halley in 1985, and Vega's subsequent detections in-situ in 1986.

Which is rendered moot by the previous. However, no negative O ions are observed, and there are nowhere near enough H+ ions to create even 1 litre of water. And the solar wind is travelling too quickly to combine with the non-existent O-. And the solar wind is getting nowhere near the comet when it is most active. Pretty dumb stuff.

So, it would appear that this electric comet woo is not only dead, but was never actually alive, due to its scientific impossibility. It can only have been dreamed up by people who are completely clueless about physics in general, and comets in particular. Possibly two thirteen year olds after a glue sniffing session? Certainly not by intelligent adults.

__________________“There is in every village a torch - the teacher; and an extinguisher - the priest.” - Victor Hugo

“Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin

A'Hearn's opinion, according to RC, is they are composed mostly of rock!

Is he an idiot or something because he did not no the difference between ice and rock?

I want to be sure I do not misunderstand: the sole basis for your claim that comets are “ROCK” is your personal understanding of what one scientist wrote in one document, right? (Leave aside, for now, questions about how well - or not - your personal understanding aligns with the author’s intent)

Or, you are relying (entirely?) on the logical fallacy “argument from authority”, right?

To be clear, you have done none of these things:
- downloaded relevant data and performed your own, quantitative analyses
- done your own, independent, detailed examination of papers reporting findings on the composition of comets
- independently assessed the validity and robustness of the reported methods used for estimating the composition of comets
- through objective, independently verifiable, methods, identified the key areas of inconsistency between the many reports of estimates of comets’ composition
- (there’s more, but this will do for now).

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]

Refractory material = dust.

It is a lie that A’Hearn is stating that comets mostly ARE rock when that is his question.
It is a lie that A’Hearn is stating that comets are mostly rock when his question is about "rock/dirt/refractory material".
It is an insulting lie that this is support for electric comet insanity.

All astronomers from the 1950's onward knew the physical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust. That is why it is insulting to accuse a prominent astronomer (A'Hearn) of stating that comets are mostly rock without that this is not the electric comet insanity of actual rock.

Whipple's model says nothing about the proportion of ices and dust. What Whipple thought is irrelevant. What A'Hearn thought is irrelevant. What matters is the physical evidence. There is not enough evidence to conclusively show that a typical comet has more dust than ices when all we have are measurements from a few comets.

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the rst quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4]

Usual lies about jets to derail from his electric comet insanity about jets

Originally Posted by Sol88

Now how do those jets work?...!

Usual lies about jets to derail from his electric comet insanity about jets.

We know how comet jets work. This is not his delusion about "pressurized nozzles!" !

Stupidity about OSIRIS images which include images of real jets that are not his insanity of electrical discharges, e.g. they shine by reflected light not emitted light (vanish in the night-side shadows !).

No, you have that wrong. The true question is "how does the EC work"?
And as long as you and your thunder friends do not give a satisfactory, qualitative and quantitative explanation, then you have no right to ask others to "defend/explain" the mainstream model.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

All astronomers from the 1950's onward knew the physical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust. That is why it is insulting to accuse a prominent astronomer (A'Hearn) of stating that comets are mostly rock without that this is not the electric comet insanity of actual rock.

Whipple's model says nothing about the proportion of ices and dust. What Whipple thought is irrelevant. What A'Hearn thought is irrelevant. What matters is the physical evidence. There is not enough evidence to conclusively show that a typical comet has more dust than ices when all we have are measurements from a few comets.

__________________20 minutes into the futureThis message is bra-bra-brought to you by z-z-z-zik zak
And-And-And I'm going to be back with you - on Network 23 after these real-real-real-really exciting messages
(Max Headroom)follow me on twitter: @tusenfem, or follow Rosetta Plasma Consortium: @Rosetta_RPC

__________________I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar

are you suggesting A'Hearn did not know the difference between ice and rock?

i think you are insulting A'Hearn.

No, Mike A'Hearn authored and co-authored more papers on comets than you can shake a stick at. From memory, he was the PI of the Deep Impact mission. The one that completely shattered this EC woo, remember? Here is one of his papers from that mission;

Confused about the meaning of "knew" to detail from his electric comet insanity

Originally Posted by Sol88

Knew??

Confused about the meaning of "knew" to detail from his electric comet insanity.

Usual insults and lies to derail from his electric comet insanity.
The 1950's are dates in the past. "All astronomers from the 1950's onward know the physical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust." is incorrect English. Thus I wrote "All astronomers from the 1950's onward knew the physical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust."
In addition:
"All astronomers today know the physical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust."
"All astronomers in the future will know the physical evidence that comets are made of ices and dust."

No, Mike A'Hearn authored and co-authored more papers on comets than you can shake a stick at. From memory, he was the PI of the Deep Impact mission. The one that completely shattered this EC woo, remember? Here is one of his papers from that mission;

The impact excavated a large volume of
very fine (microscopic) particles, too many
to have been pulverized in the impact itself;
thus, they were preexisting either as very
fine particles or as weak aggregates of such
particles.

Deep Impact: Excavating comet Tempel 1

Quote:

Assuming an
albedo of 0.1, appropriate for mafic silicate liquids,
the total mass of the droplets was about 4000 kg.
Because this is 10 times the mass of the impactor, we
assume that the glowing material originated mainly
from the comet and is thus probably silicate in
composition.

DEEP IMPACT: THE FIRST SECOND

Quote:

At the simplest level, a very basic question is whether comets are mostly ice or mostly rock/dirt/refractory material. Whipple’s [2] model of the dirty snowball, the first quantitative model, envisioned cometary nuclei as mostly ice, although our understanding has been evolving more toward mostly rock, particularly for 67P/C-G for which refractory/volatile ratios as high as 6 have been cited [3,4].

Comets: looking ahead

Yeah, nah M.A'Hearn knew the difference between dust and rock.

MAINSTREAMS understanding of what comets are made of is (slowly) evolving towards MOSTLY rock.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.